Category Archives: Federalist

Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed an executive order Thursday prohibiting local governments from instituting coronavirus-related restrictions on businesses, such as mask mandates, but did not take action on schools doing the same.

Local governments will not be able to force businesses to be the citys masks police, the vaccine police, or any other burdensome restriction that will only lead to employees being let go, revenue tanking, and businesses closing their doors, Kemp said in a press conference.

While businesses are permitted to impose COVID-19 restrictions or guidance at their own discretion, the governors order does not allow lawmakers to insist they do. This will most notably apply to mask and vaccine mandates that have been implemented in various areas.

Last month, major Georgia cities Atlanta and Savannah reintroduced mask mandates in public indoor locations. While the governors order puts a leash on businesses, it does not apply to school districts. Schools will continue to be able to put forth restrictions deemed fit and have continued to across the state.

Kemps office did not immediately respond to The Federalists request for comment seeking clarification as to why schools were not included in the order.

[T]he governor has ultimate authority over the states emergency management procedures, because while other agencies and political subdivisions of the state may be directed or authorized to develop and implement emergency management plans, rules and regulations, the law in Georgia clearly provides that no such rules and regulations or order may be inconsistent with the governors own emergency management directives, Kemp also said in the news brief.

Democrats are not pleased with Kemps order aimed at protecting individual rights. A spokesman for Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms office told a state outlet, A lack of leadership at the State level has resulted in Georgia ranking 48th nationally in fully vaccinated residents over the age of 12, subsequently ranking 7th in COVID-19 cases and 12th in deaths.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that amid historic COVID-19 infections and abysmal vaccination rates, Governor Brian Kemp would again attempt to proactively pre-empt local governments like Savannah from protecting themselves by following the science, Savannah Mayor Van Johnson said.

Republican Texas Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida have signed similar orders. However, the Texas and Florida orders apply to schools.

Read more:

Georgia Governor Bans Cities From Mandating COVID-19 Restrictions But Not School Districts - The Federalist

Alex Trebeks reign as host of Americas most-watched quiz show lasted 8,310 episodes over nearly 37 seasons. His putative replacement lasted but one day and five episodes.

Just over a week after having been named the permanent host of the syndicated version of Jeopardy!, Mike Richards announced on Friday he would no longer remain in the role, but would continue to serve as the shows executive producer. The shocking development and the events that preceded it raise numerous questions about this years host search, and the status of the show going forward.

Richards resigned on the heels of a report in The Ringer published last Wednesday evening the night before Jeopardy! began taping for its 38th season. Among other things, the report revealed old episodes of The Randumb Show, a podcast Richards hosted, where he made disparaging comments calling his co-host a booth ho and booth slut; in another instance, he claimed that one-piece swimsuits make women look frumpy and overweight.

Lest one consider the Richards expose a mere example of cancel culture, the problems it exposed go much deeper than that. To start with, the comments came after Richards became entangled in sexual and pregnancy discrimination lawsuits as executive producer of The Price Is Right. Making such comments after the prior litigation shone a bright light on the potential consequences of glib, insensitive, and offensive remarks demonstrates a shockingly unprofessional combination of recklessness, arrogance, and stupidity. Perhaps it wasnt called the Randumb podcast for nothing.

Second, Sony admitted it had no idea about the prior comments even as the hosting search drew renewed attention to Richards involvement in the discrimination lawsuits. Days prior to the announcement he would become Jeopardys permanent host, Richards made a point of writing a memo to the staff which someone theatrically leaked to the media stating that the substance of the Price lawsuit does not reflect the reality of who I am.

This space wrote last week that the concerns surrounding the lawsuit did not dissuade Sony from hiring [Richards] as host. In retrospect, however, it appears Sony only hired him as host because Richards did not tell them the whole story about both his podcast comments, and potentially about much else.

The Ringer piece also shed light on the Jeopardy! host audition process that led to Richards selection. Several pieces of its reporting do suggest that Richards attempted to influence the process, not least by playing up (or even creating) the conflict with Ken Jennings schedule that led to Richards guest-hosting stint.

In fairness, Richards showed a fair bit of competence while behind the lectern, even if he admitted previously he doesnt consider himself much of an intellectual. And of course fans of a particular guest host have reason to doubt the validity of a process that resulted in someone else getting selected.

But reports in The Ringer and The New York Times suggest that Richards and Richards alone decided which of the guest hosts episodes would be sent to focus groups for testing. To deliberately exclude someone like Rocky Schmidt a contestant in the shows second season, and a producer since well before I appeared on the program in 1995 at minimum raises questions of impropriety. And deliberately excluding Jennings and Buzzy Cohen two guest hosts and former champions from the soundstage while Richards taped his first (and ultimately last) shows as host last Thursday looks both classless and petty.

The whole affair means Jeopardy! faces a logistical nightmare in the short term and many existential questions in the longer term. In the next few weeks, the production team (still headed by Richards for the time being) has to put together a show rotation on extremely short notice.

Taping did go-ahead for the opening episodes of Jeopardy!s 38th season last Thursday, one day after The Ringers story published, and one day before Richards announced his resignation as host. That means Jeopardy! has one weeks worth of episodes, for shows airing September 13 through 17, in the proverbial can.

Variety confirmed those episodes will not get re-taped, but they may get re-edited. For instance, Johnny Gilberts opening introductions may not call Richards the host of Jeopardy! And whatever opening remarks Richards made during the premiere episode of the shows 38th season, when he thought he had become the shows permanent host, may get edited or revised to reflect developments since that show taped on Thursday.

For shows beyond September 17, Jeopardy! needs to come up with a game plan ASAP. They need to find guest hosts pronto, preferably ones who live in the Los Angeles area, or can travel on short notice.

They also need to provide clarity for upcoming contestants, who are following this drama in real-time and uncertain of what it means for them. In most cases, Jeopardy! does not pay for contestants travel expenses, so juggling the taping schedule to accommodate things like Richards resignation poses real financial and logistical burdens.

In the longer term, it seems highly unlikely that Richards can remain as executive producer of either Jeopardy! or Wheel of Fortune. The fact that Sony or Richards find his conduct so inappropriate that he cannot remain as host, but not so inappropriate that he cannot continue to produce the show, strikes one as inherently illogical. In the short term, that position may have something to do with continuity not wanting to replace a host and an executive producer at the same time, and right at the start of the television season but it seems untenable in the long run.

Beyond that, the Jeopardy! production staff rightly view Richards actions as a betrayal both of the show and of them. While Trebeks death made Johnny Gilbert the only Jeopardy! staffer remaining from the shows 1984 relaunch as a syndicated program, many staff have stayed with the show for decades.

If Richards remains as producer without a succession plan being announced in the near future, staff could well mutiny, for justifiable reasons. The staff feel he embarrassed them, and put the shows future in jeopardy (pun intended) for largely selfish reasons.

Moreover, whoever gets selected as the new host would likely not want to work for a producer who not only wanted that hosts job, but had that hosting job (at least for a hot second). For a lot of reasons, then, Richards should be on his way out at Jeopardy! probably not within weeks, but within months.

In addition to replacing Richards as producer, Sony Pictures Entertainment should take two other steps. First, it needs to conduct an entirely new search for a host, and do so from scratch. Even though this space called the search long-running, because it was, the fact that Richards apparently had a thumb, and quite possibly a fist, on the scale makes everything associated with that process tainted.

Partisans rooting for people like Ken Jennings or LeVar Burton immediately pushed for their candidate to get the Jeopardy!hosting job. But lest one forget, Jennings has his own history of intemperate remarks, which resurfaced earlier this year as his episodes as guest host prepared to air.

If Sony didnt vet their in-house candidate in Richards properly and they didnt then its fair to assume they didnt vet their other candidates thoroughly either. Moreover, for all we know, Richards could have attempted to exclude guest hosts he thought might have threatened his shot at getting the permanent gig.

To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, at this point Sony doesnt know what it doesnt know about its other candidates. It needs to begin at square one, and start the process from scratch.

Beyond that, Sony should do one other thing with Jeopardy!: Nothing.

No prime-time specials, no flashy new gimmicks, no changes to the format or content, for two to three years after the new host is in place. Beg the staff to stay on and even ask some of those who had retired to come back. Having Harry Friedman, who served as executive producer of both Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune through the spring of 2020, return as an interim producer for the next year or two would provide continuity and a way for Richards to exit both programs which he needs to do.

This space suggested last week that Sonys decision to launch other specials represented an attempt to expand the Jeopardy! branchs reach. To put it more crassly, they saw more dollar signs on the table and wanted to cash in.

That move has now backfired spectacularly, with a show and a franchise in chaos. The best thing Sony can do now involves the old adage: When youre in a hole, stop digging. Hire good guest hosts (and eventually a permanent host), dont mess with their prior success, and move on from Mike Richards. The sooner, the better.

See the article here:

Mike Richards's Past Comments Cost Him The New 'Jeopardy!' Hosting Job And Leave Sony In A Bind - The Federalist

California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu used money from his campaign account to funnel more than $15,000 since 2018 to his wifes school board campaign, according to RedState.

Lieus campaign reportedly sent the money to Betty Lieus campaign committee in batches. The account forwarded $888 in November 2018, $12,500 for the entirety of 2019, and $2,000 in March 2021.

Three of the contributions are listed as going to Betty Lieu for School Board 2018 and two are listed as going to Betty Lieu for School Board 2019, but the accounts are one and the same, reported RedStatess Jennifer Van Laar. Teds treasurer should know this since hes also Bettys treasurer.

Jon Matthews Jr., chairman for the California Conservative Party, told The Federalist this says a lot about Lieus leadership.

There are certain people out here, Ted Lieu is one of them, who have reached a place where they are almost untouchable, Matthews said.

The congressmans wife was elected in 2018 to be a trustee in Torrance Unified School District, located in Torrance, California. While also funneling money to his wifes cause, Lieu sent emails from his campaign account last year to call for donations, documents show.

While federal election law permits candidates to solicit funds with their email or through other campaign mechanisms, there is a qualifier: Election law and House ethics rules outline how campaign funds cannot be transferred for personal use or used as a donation or gift to family.

Use of campaign funds for a gift or donation is permissible only if the outlay serves a bona fide campaign or political purpose, and in this regard, the regulation specifies that a Member may not use campaign funds to make a gift or donation to a family member, the House ethics website states.

The Democrat may have violated the law, given what Lieu wrote to supporters. Betty still has some campaign debt from her first race in 2018, he said. Helping her clear the debt would be a big boost for her re-election campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show Lieu has had other shady dealings. In 2o17, he made two payments of $25,000 worth of campaign money to his alma mater Stanford University, where his son was later admitted.

Lieus office, as well as his campaign and wife, did not immediately respond to The Federalists request for comment.

Read more here:

Rep. Ted Lieu Funneled $15K Of His Campaign Funds To Wife's Campaign - The Federalist

After an unelected public health bureaucrat in Dane County, Wisconsin, issued a sweeping and unscientific mandate on Tuesday requiring indoor masking for everyone, including vaccinated people and even toddlers as young as two, one Wisconsin legal group is taking the fight once again to the state Supreme Court.

On behalf of a county resident, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) has filed an original action with the states high court urging the justices to review whether Janel Heinrich, the health officer, has the authority to issue a new county-wide mask mandate.

According to the courts recent COVID-related rulings, some of which are against this very bureaucrat, she does not. Back in June, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in James v. Heinrich that local health officers power is limited and must be bestowed specifically by legislators.

The state Supreme Court has struck down COVID-related overreaches in at least five cases, such as when Democrat Gov. Tony Evers tried to shut down elections and issue stay-at-home orders. When it became clear the governor didnt have unilateral authority over his constituents coronavirus response, unelected state and local officials stepped in to try imposing their will without legislative backing. The states high court has also struck down those attempts.

Here we go again, WILLs deputy counsel Dan Lennington told The Federalist. Local officials are trying to take legislative power and write their own laws, and require citizens to do things that the local official has no power to do.

The courts have made clear that unelected public health officers do not have unlimited authority, Lennington said. Yet again, on the eve of a new school year, Dane County has issued a breathtakingly bold order. Last time they tried to close all schools, this time they are requiring universal masking for anyone in an enclosed space, including two-year olds. Next time it could be vaccine passports. Dane Countys health officer, simply put, doesnt have the power to order universal masking, or anything else, without express legal authority.

Not only do court precedent and the law condemn Heinrichs diktats; common sense does too. One look at the data shows nobody is dying of the Wuhan virus in Dane County, which houses the states capital city of Madison. The line depicting average weekly COVID-19 deaths is steady at zero. The seven-day average has been zero deaths since the middle of May, when that average was a single death.

The last time the weekly average was higher than one was before Valentines Day. And in the last two weeks, only one death has been attributed to coronavirus in this county of more than half a million people, with statewide deaths down 34 percent in the same timeframe.

For these reasons and more for example, the side effects of pandemic mitigation such as a rapidly growing mental health crisis, a massive surge in drug overdoses, and a catastrophic blow to the education of children WILLs legal action is a welcomed development, and Lennington said hes very hopeful that the supreme court will take this. For healthy yet helpless residents of deep-blue Madison who are weary of getting the rug pulled out from under them, court action would help them reclaim that liberty and sanity.

But as Wisconsinites and Americans at large know, this fight is bigger than the courtroom. Usually, when Americans sit by and expect courts to step in and mitigate some of their most pressing concerns, theyre left with blessing of liberty like Drag Queen Story Hour and the American Civil Liberties Union gearing up to take a gentle grandmother florist for everything she owns.

A WILL victory would be a welcomed win for healthy Dane County residents, but for how long? The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already signaled that bureaucratic overreach is unacceptable, but that hasnt stopped power-hungry officials from pushing the limits and issuing sweeping and invasive orders anyway.

On the flip side, if the court doesnt respond positively to WILLs lawsuit, were right back to a masked-up square one, with health elites even more emboldened and healthy citizens once again completely helpless.To that end, it isnt simply WILLs responsibility to protect our liberties. Its our duty too and the stakes are high.

Wisconsinites must refuse to play into the political games of the ruling class by masking up, as the scientific and empirical evidence is stacked against their decrees. Dont believe the lie that mandatory masking is a minor inconvenience. In a county where nobody is dying of COVID, complying with masks is much more than that: Its a visible sign of allegiance to sadistic elites and their power-drunk delusions.

The unasked question when a healthy Dane County resident walks indoors is, Will you play the puppeteers pandemic game? If you cover your face, you affirm that you will, and the powerful get more power.

If we ever want to live free, really truly free, we must stop putting on a mask just to avoid confrontation despite knowing that at this point, its a farce. If not after a year and a half and zero average deaths, then when?

If Dane County can get away with this, then any local official in the state can get away with the same power, Lennington told The Federalist. Whats next? Vaccine passports? Mandatory masks? Permanent masks?

The question here isnt about whether masks are useful. As Lennington said, the question is Who will decide what law is going to be? Will it be elected officials or unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats?

This isnt just a query for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Its a question for you.

The rest is here:

Lawsuit To Stop Wisconsin Mask Mandates Is Bigger Than Court - The Federalist

Theres nothing quite like the feeling of being ordered to do something absurd and being helpless against it. That was exactly the feeling that washed over many residents of Dane County, Wisconsin, on Tuesday when an unelected decisionmaker decreed that just two days later, a mask would be required for entry into virtually every indoor space.

The blow might have been softened and resulting ire lessened if there were any reason to believe this action was going to save lives in the county thats home to Wisconsins capital city of Madison. But its hard to improve a daily death average of zero.

That inescapable reality that almost nobody is dying of the Wuhan virus in one of the most vaccinated counties in the country, yet breathing uninhibited is verboten is the premier form of gaslighting from the ruling class of power-drunk elites.

For a year and a half, well-meaning Americans have complied with anti-science executive decisions and been scorned when they merely disagreed with the conventional wisdom pouring out of the corporate press. Each time, lawmakers and bureaucrats weaponized private businesses to do their dirty work, ordering them to enforce mask-wearing and social distancing and to keep the peasants in line.

They got away with all of that, despite the mitigation measures causing catastrophic side-effects such as a waxing mental health crisis, a massive surge in drug overdoses, and a huge blow to the education and other cognitive development of the next generation, the extent to which we will not possibly be able to ascertain for years to come.

Life is a game of tradeoffs, and there may be some formula of factors that makes the above trade-offs worth it. But what is Dane County trying to prevent? Whom is it trying to protect?

Tuesdays order prompted a look at the numbers, which revealed an incredible sustained straight black line at zero ZERO deaths for the seven-day average since the middle of May, when the seven-day average was a whopping single death. The last time the weekly average was higher than one was before Valentines Day. Only one death has been attributed to coronavirus in this county of more than half a million people in the last two weeks, with deaths across the entire state down 34 percent in the same timeframe. See for yourself:

Thats why, when one of the unelected Dane County health tyrants unilaterally decided its time to mask up again for everyone including the vaccinated and even toddlers as young as 2 years old weary residents were driven to rage and worse, to despair.

What on Earth are logical residents to do when the anti-science authoritarians in power refuse to relent with disruptive rules? What are they to do when theres no end in sight and to obey is to betray what they know to be rational and true?

The exasperation runs deep because a healthy person wearing a mask among healthy people is way more than an inconvenience. To obey the absurd mask rules is to play into the delusions and games of the sadistic ruling class. Wearing a mask to save lives even though nobody is dying is on caliber with calling a man she because he playacts as a woman. It feels wrong because it is.

The things we say or dont say, wear or dont wear, and do or dont do are based on more than religious conviction. Theyre based on a fundamental worldview of whether were committed to living within the bounds of reality. We shouldnt govern ourselves based on what our neighbor thinks of us. We should live according to what is good and right and true based on evidence and truth, and we make trade-offs.

If you live in Dane County, you know that East Washington Avenue, the three-mile thoroughfare west of Sun Prairie that leads to the Capitol, is a disaster zone, known for crashes, hit-and-runs, and reckless driving including drag racing at all hours of the night. With five fatal accidents so far in just the first eight months, 2021 has proved to be the most dangerous year on East Wash in at least a decade. Just more than a month ago, two pedestrians were fatally struck on that road within the same week, a tragic reality but a higher number than Dane Countys weekly COVID death average of zero.

Yet each day, thousands of drivers and plenty of pedestrians and bicyclists still opt for East Wash, risks and all. Drivers might get a ticket if they drive too fast and pedestrians might need to double-check for the all-clear before they trust the crosswalk, but they assume the risks and act accordingly.

What happens if those same people, most likely vaccinated, assess the risks of COVID and then try to go out to dinner without a mask or attend church or use their gym? Theyll be forced to mask up or be denied entry. Within the latest Dane County order is a directive for private businesses to enforce the new rule because nobody is allowed to individually assess virtually nonexistent risks from COVID.

This is an outrage, and maybe were partly to blame for ever agreeing to mask in the first place, or at least for continuing to mask after two weeks to flatten the curve. We cant do anything about our conduct last year except to learn from it, but we can think about how the choices we make today will empower callous bureaucrats to exercise tyranny over our lives tomorrow.

We all have some choices to make. Maybe my maskless self will be excused from my favorite coffee shop or denied entry to the hair salon, and Ill have to suck it up. But what about activities that are harder to avoid, like getting groceries or using public transportation? At what point do we stop putting on a mask just to avoid confrontation despite knowing that at this point, its all a farce? If not after a year and a half and zero average deaths, then when?

Its way beyond time to reclaim truth and live according to our principles, not someone elses lies. We must refuse to wear a mask in counties where nobody is dying from COVID. Today, thats Dane County. Tomorrow, it could be wherever you live.

View post:

I Won't Wear A Mask In A County Where No One Is Dying Of COVID - The Federalist

It has been years since I gave thought to the day my soon-to-be husband and I shopped for our wedding rings. But this year our anniversary coincided with an appeal filed with the Colorado Court of Appeals by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Jack Phillips, the Christian owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

His trials began in 2012 after he refused to make a same-sex wedding cake. He would sell the male couple other baked goods, but not a wedding cake. After six years of litigation, Phillips won a 2018 Supreme Court decision on faith-based grounds. Now Phillips is again in court.

This time, he is appealing a June 2021 ruling against him for having refused, in 2017, to design a cake celebrating the transmutation of Charlie Scardina into Autumn Scardina. The requested cake was to be pink on the inside, blue on the outside, and iced with affirming messages.

A transgender male and activist lawyer, Scardina targeted Phillips to correct the errors of his thinking. When his lawyers first brought suit, they threatened to sue Phillips again if the case were dismissed for any reason. The bakers ongoing persecution is a chilling emblem of a legal system disfigured by the elevation of unfettered egoism over civility and the common good.

The decades-old story of my wedding ring illustrates the contrast. Let me explain.

Our wedding date was set. It was time to pick a ring. But where to look for one? How to shop? We were young and broke. It would be some years before we could afford to pay retail. Luckily, my intended was a combative shopper, born tohondel. He did not believe in fixed prices. There were only asking prices begging to be negotiated.

We started in Manhattans diamond district in the west Forties. No diamonds were on our shopping list. But 47thStreet was a place to haggle, draw swords, dicker away until the doomed asking price dropped in exhaustion.

His ring was easy. A plain gold band was all. It was mine that took hunting. I wanted something low-keyed but rich with symbolism. No glitz. It had to be unembellished but eloquent a sort of Grail for my ring finger.

I had no idea what my adjectives might look like in the concrete. So we trooped from stall to stall in the Diamond Exchange scouting for . . . what, exactly?

Then, finally, there it was. In the showcase of an older jeweler, his forearm tattooed with numbers from a concentration camp, were simple gold bands embossed with phrases from the Tanakh. They were cut in the identical ancient block script familiar to Jesus of Nazareth who grew, as the Gospels tell us, in wisdom and study of Torah.

The graphic beauty of the Hebrew characters heightened by our inability to read them seemed a visible link to Him in Whom we would marry. One square letter followed another, spacing calculated to encircle the band with no marked beginning or end.

The indissolubility of marriage seemed imprinted in the very design. Add the romance of indecipherability. This was my ring!

Next came the contest over cost. The groom-to-be went into gladiatorial mode. The seller was good at the game. It was a spirited match. Eventually the two settled on a price.

All that was left was to decide on was the inscription from a sheet of suggested phrases. My heart set on a passage from the Book of Ruth that reads in full:

Ruth said: Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest I will go, where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people and thy God my God.

Only the central portion (whither thou goest . . .) could fit around the ring, but the entire antiphon is implicit in the fragment. Ruths pledge to Naomi is the purest and most stirring statement of friendship I have ever known. I ached to claim it for myself and wear it for the rest of my life.

Was one of us Jewish? The jeweler wanted to know. Was either of us leaving another religion to become Jewish? No, we were not. Well, then, he was sorry but he would not give us that particular quotation. The point was non-negotiable. Pick a different phrase.

The rebuff was a sore let-down, but we did not press. We deferred to his prohibition because, in some unspoken way, we understood. The story of Ruth is one of conversion that affirms the Jewish nation. It testifies to peoplehood. The intensity of this mans concern to honor the sacred core of the text moved us. Here was a man who had suffered the unspeakable for no other reason than he was part of the people Ruth pledged herself to.

There was grace in his refusal. Had he granted me the words I craved, he would, in conscience, have violated the grandeur of them. Ruths commitment was not simply to another person but to a covenanted community bound together since the call of Abraham. Her words were his inheritance; he was not free to extend them to us.

Disappointed, I settled for words from the Song of Solomon: I found him whom my soul loveth. Over the years, my second choice proved to be the truer one. The ring is dearer to me than anything else I possess. But I did not feel that then.

What innocents we were. It never entered our minds to challenge the denial. We took for granted the mans moral right to refuse us; any legal issue, then, was irrelevant. But by todays lights, we gave in too readily. We could have raised a stink. Demanded our rights as consumers. Bullied the vendor with accusations of anti-Christian bigotry. We did not have to submit to the discomfort of being told we were ineligible for what we desired.

Something there is that does not love a wall, / That wants it down. Pace Robert Frost, not every barrier should be cleared away. Not everything is permeable. A nation cannot survive without borders; no culture endures without limits.

Walls provide a bulwark against chaos and dissolution. That day in the Exchange, we stumbled against the very wall a man had clung to in the camps. It was the same one that had kept Jewry from disappearing centuries before modern nation states existed.

Had we been noisy enough, I might have gotten the thing I wanted at the time. But at what cost to the common good?

How do we discern which walls, like dikes, have to be maintained, and which left to crumble? Aggressive shows of grievance are meant to deflect discernment, not advance it. In the absence of a shared moral code, our courts wrestle to accommodate malcontents who are not satisfied with the freedom to live differently. They demand assent, even obeisance, to their difference.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy enshrined the demand. As he declared three decades ago: At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

In the years between these two stories of thwarted wants, civic culture has positioned Kennedys nihilism as a civil right. And we are all poorer for it.

Read the original:

What Happened When A Man Refused To Sell Me The Ring Of My Dreams - The Federalist

In a sign of the times, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, is circulating a memo aimed at emboldening Republicans to fight a measure that would distribute federal money to nonworking parents, worsening poverty traps by extending the new child allowance through the budget reconciliation bill. Rubios memo also criticizes the media for characterizing Democrats proposal as an expanded child tax credit when the money goes to parents with zero tax liability, or who are simply not working at all.

Rubio and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, intend to introduce an amendment that would create a deficit-neutral fund that expands the child tax credit while maintaining the essential connection between receiving the credit and working, according to the memo.

Their colleagues may be less interested in voicing opposition. Some Republicans are a bit reluctant to criticize the plan, a senior GOP aide told The Federalist on Monday.

In the Aug. 6 memo to Republican Senate staffers,Rubio warns the Biden Administrations new government child benefit is the precursor to a universal basicincome. By extending the newly implemented allowance through 2025 in the reconciliation package, Rubio believes Democrats would all but ensure the program becomes permanent.

Its a fight Republicans may be disinclined to take up on the heels of lockdowns that battered working families, and at a time conservative intellectuals are reconsidering the moral and political value of limited government ideology. But its a fight Rubio is well-positioned to wage.

Rubio and Lee pushed to ensure an expanded child tax credit made it into Republicans 2017 tax bill. Now, Rubios sounding the alarm that Democrats aim to permanently turn the historically popular Child Tax Credit into welfare for nonworking parents, with no connection to sustainable paths out of poverty, such as work or marriage.

Before this law, parents had to have income in order toreceive the Child Tax Credit, reads Rubios memo. Under the year-long expansion of the program, parents whohave no earned income whatsoever will receive up to $3,000 per child and $3,600 per childunder age 6 annually.

Parents dont even have to file taxes to receive the credit and maysimply sign up online and start receiving checks, he added.

Rubio and Lee made a similar argument against a plan introduced by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, in February that would provide $4,200 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 per year for every child age 6 to 17 via monthly payments, as the Washington Post put it earlier this year. At the time, Rubio and Lee contended an essential part of being pro-family is being pro-work.

In his Friday memo, Rubio used Bidens words against him, citing a 1988 column in which he argued the broken down welfare system only parcels out welfare checks and does nothing to help the poor find productive jobs. The Florida Republican also quoted Bill Clinton pledging in 1996 totransform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle ofdependence to one that emphasizes work and independence.

According to Rubio, Democrats today have abandoned that consensus. His memo listed four reasons the reconciliation proposal is not pro-family, including the removal of work requirements and marriage incentives, along with a failure to ensure the establishment of child-support orders and to ensure parents with histories of crime and substance abuse are put on a path to recovery.

Democrats have little reason to worry about Republicans opposing measures in the reconciliation bill, which is different from the bipartisan infrastructure package. The party wont need enough votes to compromise on this three-year extension by seriously considering the Rubio-Lee amendment unless internal struggles emerge, which may at least partially explain Republican reluctance to weigh in.

Addressing The Federalists reporting on Monday, Zaid Jilani noted, The Republicans being reluctant to oppose what is effectively a welfare program is a big change from the politics of the 1990s.

If you think the welfare state is cool, he tweeted, thats a positive development (and vice versa).

The Rubio memos walk down memory lane underscores this point about Democrats, including the current president. But the very existence of the memo also suggests Republicans today are significantly less eager to pick battles over welfare and entitlements, wary of crumbling families and a difficult economy, having spent with abandon for four years under President Trump.

Given the cultural and financial magnitude of the proposed allowance, further silence could be very telling about the partys stomach for stemming hefty entitlement growth and fighting the poverty traps conservatives have long decried.

Read more:

Rubio: Dem Child Allowance Is A 'Poverty Trap,' 'Precursor' To UBI - The Federalist

The weeks upon weeks of negotiations leading up to the passage of a $1 trillion infrastructure bill were just the prelude to the absolute whopper that is the Bernie Sanders budget resolution, which hit the wires Monday morning and will hit the Senate floor Tuesday.

The $3.5 trillion documentis a full-on attempt to remake the American economy, the labor markets, blow off our immigration laws, rewrite the tax code, impose a climate agenda, and profoundly alter the relationship between the government, and those it governs.

Among the bills highlights:

It is important to note that congressional budgets are blueprints. Budget resolutions never become law; they merely provide the umbrella document, or the outline, under which appropriations the actual spending takes place. Much of that process will begin in September when Senate committees put forward their reconciliation bill. Reconciliation also has an associated unlimited amendment process, or vote-a-rama, and passes with a simple majority.

Taken together, this current $1 trillion infrastructure bill, plus the $3.5 trillion budget resolution, which will be accompanied with a reconciliation bill of potentially an even greater amount, is one of the most aggressive efforts from Democrats in the modern era to transform the economy in their image.

At some level, you have to respect the moxie. Democrats are using a Democrats-only reconciliation package to transform the country. Republicans couldnt even muster the votes on their own side to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare.

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist's senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

Excerpt from:

Democrats' $3.5 Trillion Budget Resolution Would Remake The US Economy - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Senior Editor Christopher Bedford and Culture Editor Emily Jashsinky discuss New York Gov. Andrew Cuomos resignation and how the corporate media ignored his wrongdoings, all for the sake of being anti-Trump.

Every single thing about this guy was in broad freaking daylight and they just ignored it because theyre soulless awful, trolls, Bedford said.

When they should have been looking at his record critically, they were very busy talking about how theyre Cuomo-sexual, they were busy lauding him, they were busy praising him, Jashinsky added.

While Bedford and Jashinsky say they were caught off guard by Cuomos announcement, they both expect him to re-enter the scene.

I wouldnt be surprised if he came back to governor, Jashinsky said. I think maybe thats why he actually resigned is because the impeachment, that would be a problem for, you know, running again, whereas, if you can just say he resigned because he was becoming a distraction.

I dont think hes gone, Bedford said.

Listen here:

Visit link:

The Media's Shameless Fawning Over Andrew Cuomo Fuels Institutional Distrust - The Federalist

A new study has found that individuals that have previously contracted COVID-19 show a more potent antibody response than those who were solely vaccinated for the respiratory virus.

Conducted by a research team at Rockefeller University in New York, the analysis found that between a first (prime) and second (booster) shot of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, the memory B cells of infection-nave individuals produced antibodies that evolved increased neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2, but also that no additional increase in the potency or breadth of this activity was observed thereafter.

Meanwhile, researchers determined that not only do recovered COVID-19 patients possess neutralizing antibodies up to a year after infection, but that such infection simultaneously assists in offering protection against developing variants.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection produces B-cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year, the study read. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern.

The analysis later goes on to conclude, Memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination.

Moreover, the results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.

The studys findings add to further mounting evidence detailing the level of protection natural immunity offers previously infected COVID-19 patients. Last month, Emory University published an extensive investigation describing the efficiency of long-term immunity against the respiratory virus. Similar discoveries have also been identified in research released by the Cleveland Clinic and the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, respectively.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

More here:

Study Finds Greater Antibody Response In Recovered COVID-19 Patients Than Vaccinated Ones - The Federalist